New York City May Ban Pre-Hire Marijuana Tests for Many Job Applicants

By | April 15, 2019

  • April 15, 2019 at 2:55 pm
    Agent says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 18

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

  • April 15, 2019 at 4:02 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 13

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • April 15, 2019 at 4:48 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 15
      Thumb down 3

      “The law [banning marijuana testing prior to hiring] will apply to newly hired police, firemen, paramedics, high-rise construction workers, nurses, doctors, truck drivers, safety inspectors and a whole bunch of other jobs where THC consumption doesn’t matter at all! ”

      Is this sarcasm or are you just trolling? Are you honestly arguing you think the law banning marijuana testing WILL apply to police and truck drivers?

      Because, if that’s what you’re saying, that’s the exact opposite of what was said in the article:

      “The New York City measure appears to go further by barring businesses from making applicants take marijuana tests at any point before hiring. There are exceptions for police, construction workers, commercial drivers, child care workers and certain others.

      • April 15, 2019 at 5:15 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 16

        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

        • April 16, 2019 at 8:02 am
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 12
          Thumb down 4

          “So if someone shows up to an interview for a position at my company, or later shows up on the job – and appears to be deeply stoned – I can no longer test them?”

          SMH. Did you even bother to read the headline or the second sentences of the article? The proposed law only applies to “pre-employment testing.”

          • April 16, 2019 at 11:11 am
            aghast says:
            Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 15
            Thumb down 0

            If an applicant shows up to an interview stoned, don’t hire them. You don’t need a drug test to not hire someone.

          • April 16, 2019 at 4:56 pm
            craig cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 13

            You lefties live in a land of make believe (pot fueled?).

            If a person shows up for an interview looking stoned, I don’t hire him. Period. That goes for people who may appear to me as stoned but are not, because I won’t be able to test him for THC anymore. The completely sober guy never gets the job because I have to guess now.

            Happy now? What problem were you trying to solve again?

          • April 16, 2019 at 5:01 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 9
            Thumb down 3

            “That goes for people who may appear to me as stoned but are not, because I won’t be able to test him for THC anymore.”

            WHAT? OF COURSE YOU CAN!!! We’ve already discussed how employers can do that legally and in accordance with ADA guidelines in another thread, and the article is clear that this non-testing is solely for pre-employment and not post-hiring.

      • April 16, 2019 at 9:31 am
        Polar BARReport says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 12

        Rosie; it’s clearly sarcasm because we expect you to do the trolling. Thanks for complying!

        • April 16, 2019 at 10:00 am
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 10
          Thumb down 2

          “Trolling is defined as creating discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages in an online community. Basically, a troll is someone who purposely says something controversial in order to get a rise out of other users.”

          I challenge you to find even just one of my comments (and quote the whole thing verbatim) when I’ve posted something that met the above criteria.

          • April 16, 2019 at 10:01 am
            Polar BARReport says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 9

            Just one? I can’t.

          • April 16, 2019 at 10:54 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 11
            Thumb down 2

            Okay. I challenge you to post as many or as few of my comments as you’d like (and quote the whole thing verbatim) that meets the trolling criteria I previously cited.

          • April 17, 2019 at 8:55 am
            Polar BARReport says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 4

            creating discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages:

            2 Examples:

            ONE:
            excerpt from your comments above:
            “Did you even bother to read the headline or the second sentences of the article? The proposed law only applies to “pre-employment testing.”

            Reason it is trolling: comments on the article need not be restricted exclusively to the topic of the article. Comments on peripheral issues that add to understanding of the issue are useful and don’t violate common sense application of ‘on-topic’ rules.

            TWO:
            Excerpted from your comments above:
            ” the article is clear that this non-testing is solely for pre-employment and not post-hiring. ”

            Reason it is trolling: See reason for excerpt #1.

          • April 17, 2019 at 9:15 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 0

            You’re really grasping at straws.

            Craig’s initially said “The law will apply to newly hired police…” I asked if he actually read the article because it was clear the law (a) is NOT for newly hired employees and (b) specifically EXCLUDED police and other professions.

            Craig made a false statement.

            I corrected him and cited the article.

            Did I call him any names? No. Did I make a straw-man argument, a what-about-ism or any other argument fallacy? No.

            I genuinely asked if he read the by-line and the article because what he posted was not accurate based on that information.

            That is not trolling. That was me explaining he was wrong and providing citations to support my argument.

          • April 18, 2019 at 11:54 am
            Polarizing BARReportoday says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            No rule exists that requires someone reply to the main topic exclusively.

  • April 15, 2019 at 7:28 pm
    Better crook says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 6

    All you OLD farts are hilarious best part about you is that you won’t be around much longer. NYC is the gold standard for America. What’s next complain that we don’t write enough letters. It’s not the 50’s anymore alcohol is way worse than pot.

    • April 15, 2019 at 7:47 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 16

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • April 16, 2019 at 9:37 am
      Polar BARReport says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 11

      ‘Old timers’ will not be cognitively impaired, and will be cogent and around a lot longer than long-term Stoners whose cerebral functions will be severely impaired by age 40-50; i.e. near old-timer status. Thanks for the chuckle about NYC being a ‘gold standard’. How’s that city budget deficit, and how are the NYC subway and water system working these days?

  • April 16, 2019 at 11:44 am
    George Robben says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 0

    What if…in all fairness…a individual Texas driver would be limited in the amount they can sue FOR by the amount of liability insurance they carry. In other words, if you have a minimum $30,000 policy, the most you can sue another driver for is $30,000!
    Seems to be the ultimate in fairness…

  • April 16, 2019 at 11:53 am
    KP says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 8

    I see a rise in Worker’s Comp claims.

  • April 16, 2019 at 12:48 pm
    Bob says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 12

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • April 16, 2019 at 1:26 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 8
      Thumb down 1

      Employers are not barred from drug testing employees. Even if this proposed rule goes into effect in NY, it’s limited to pre-employment testing. Employers are free to fire people for coming to work stoned, just as they are free to fire people if they show up drunk, high on opioids, or are under the influence of other legal substances which impact their work product.

      • April 16, 2019 at 4:42 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 11

        Do you ever feel shame at defending pot? Saying things that you know won’t be true?

        Once they ban pre-employment THC testing, what logic in the world would allow employers to test for – and fire people – if they had THC in their system AFTER being hired? The same conditions apply: THC can be in the system for days and days and firing someone for failing a THC test would be just as “unfair” as not hiring them for the same reason.

        You Pot Fans need some logic classes. (Or a little less THC in your own brain.)_

        • April 16, 2019 at 5:09 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 8
          Thumb down 1

          “what logic in the world would allow employers to test for – and fire people – if they had THC in their system AFTER being hired?”

          The same logic that tells employers it’s acceptable to fire someone if the employee is showing physical and mental signs of impairment and an inability to do their job while intoxicated on any substances, even those that are legally prescribed such as opioids or other pain medication.

          You seem to forget an earlier conversation where I spelled out EXACTLY how an employer can fire someone for marijuana impairment (or even simply the suspicion of working while high) while conforming to ADA guidelines if the drug was legally prescribed for some kind of disability. That doesn’t surprise me.

          • April 16, 2019 at 5:42 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 11

            Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*